This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Is Ron Paul Insane?

Originally Posted by Goldenboy219

In the minds of classical conservatives, "New Deal" democrats, socialists, fascists, corporatists, elitists, and just plain pessimists, then yes he is going to come off as insane. When someone comes along speaking against facets of government dependent society, those who manipulate government for personal gain are going to do whatever possible limit their reach.

.

Hey, I think he is far from perfect but I think he's far better than the vast majority of US and UK politicians.

"It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

Re: Is Ron Paul Insane?

No foreign entanglements work when you're a new, small nation. When you're the biggest guy around, there will be people who hate you just for existing, and you might have to change strategies a little.

I mispoke. No unneccessary foreign entanglements.

Staying out of the League of Nations was part of what allowed WWII to happen.

1. This is mere conjecture.

2. It is not relevant to my question.

What, exactly, do you think will happen if we withdraw from the UN and NATO? I'm not even saying I agree with Paul on either issue, I'm just wondering what specific objections you have.

"Ron Paul wants to withdraw from the UN and NATO!!!"

...Is not a substantive criticism.

(answered above)

You've answered nothing. What type of interference are you talking about? Be specific.

Eh, no argument here. I like his domestic ideas to some extent, I just think that he takes them too far.

Re: Is Ron Paul Insane?

Okay, but keep in mind that everyone has a different idea of what is necessary.

What, exactly, do you think will happen if we withdraw from the UN and NATO? I'm not even saying I agree with Paul on either issue, I'm just wondering what specific objections you have.

"Ron Paul wants to withdraw from the UN and NATO!!!"

...Is not a substantive criticism.

UN because as a powerful nation, we have a responsibility to have a say in world affairs. I don't particularly like the setup of the organization, but it's something that has the potential to make decisions to influence the whole world, and we're too big to pretend we aren't part of the whole world.
NATO because of strength in numbers. Washington may have warned against alliances, but that was before there were people who hates us merely for existing.

You've answered nothing. What type of interference are you talking about? Be specific.

Yes, military (should other options like diplomacy not work). But I also said that we should not do it alone, but rather only when most of the world is on our side.

"He just takes them too far."

...Is not a substantive criticism.

It's not supposed to be, I'm just explaining why I personally disagree with many of his policies.

Re: Is Ron Paul Insane?

Okay, but keep in mind that everyone has a different idea of what is necessary.

And their idea of necessary would be wrong if they advocated military interventionism where it doesn't directly concern our country.

UN because as a powerful nation, we have a responsibility to have a say in world affairs. I don't particularly like the setup of the organization, but it's something that has the potential to make decisions to influence the whole world, and we're too big to pretend we aren't part of the whole world.

You've failed to elaborate on how the UN itself creates or permits any of these perceived benefits.

NATO because of strength in numbers. Washington may have warned against alliances, but that was before there were people who hates us merely for existing.

Fair enough. At least it's a reason.

Yes, military (should other options like diplomacy not work).

So, you have no problem sending American troops to their deaths in order to mediate a conflict which does not concern them? No doubt you'll be picking up a rifle?

But I also said that we should not do it alone, but rather only when most of the world is on our side.

So, we have to do the "right thing" but only when it's popular?

It's not supposed to be, I'm just explaining why I personally disagree with many of his policies.

That's fine. But if your position is meant to be taken seriously I would highly recommend that you incorporate substance into it.

Re: Is Ron Paul Insane?

No.

1234567

Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.

Re: Is Ron Paul Insane?

Is necroing a 3 year old thread insane?

We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham
Iíve always believed that America is an idea, not defined by its people but by its ideals. - Lindsey Graham